9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Import of surgical instruments classifications, eligibility for exemption under different notifications, consideration of written submissions, interpretation of product description, de novo consideration of appeals. Analysis: The appellants, as importers of surgical instruments classifications, imported 'Scalp Vein Sets' at the port of Madras. They filed a refund application under Notification No. 208/81-Cus., claiming exemption for the sets. However, their claim was initially rejected, stating that the goods were eligible for partial exemption under Notification No. 65/88-Cus for 'Infusion Sets,' not covered under the earlier notification. An appeal against this decision was allowed, and the matter was remitted back to the Commissioner (Appeals). Despite written submissions by the assessee, the Commissioner rejected the refund claim, leading to the current appeals. During the hearing, it was noted that the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) based his decision on the product not being covered by a previous court decision. However, it was highlighted that the Commissioner failed to consider whether the goods could be eligible for exemption under a different part of Notification No. 208/81, specifically referring to 'Disposable cannula for Aorts, Vena Cava and similar veins and blood vessels and cannula for intra corporal space.' The Appellate Tribunal found that the Commissioner should have assessed if the Scalp Vein Sets met this description based on clarifications from the DGHS. It was emphasized that a claim for exemption could be made before the Appellate authority or in de novo proceedings, highlighting the need for a comprehensive re-evaluation of the claim. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the previous orders and allowed the appeals for de novo consideration. The Tribunal directed that the appeals should be reheard, and the claim re-determined in accordance with the law. By emphasizing the importance of considering all relevant aspects and interpretations of the product description, the Tribunal ensured a fair and thorough review of the eligibility for exemption under the applicable notifications, providing clarity and guidance for future proceedings.
|
